SHRI JERAMBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI THESIA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1574/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Jerambhai Parsottambhai V The Deputy Commissioner Thesia, A-17, Vithal Nagar, S Of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat. Hirabaug, Varchha Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aampt 5791 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R.Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

u/s 271 (J)(c) & that is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. The ratio of above decision of Honourable Supreme Court is directly applicable to the facts of instant case & hence, penalty imposed by assessing officer is required to be deleted. Without prejudice to the above, it is further submitted that tax on above addition

SHRI VIJAY CHAMPAK PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.281/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat

u/s 54F of the Act, “for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Hence, there is no definite charge (fix charge), as pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 19. As stated above, no clear finding was given by the assessing officer regarding the invocation of the limb in the penalty order the assessing officer levied the Vijay

SHREE SAINATH SARVAJANIK SEWA MANDAL TRUST,UNA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.204/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Sewa Vs. The Ito, Exemption Ward, Mandal Trust, Surat. N.H. No.8, Near Ganesh Sisodra, Unn-396445, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafts7802P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short ‘Nfac), Delhi, In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036051308(1) Dated 30.09.2021, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Exemption Ward, Mandal Trust, Surat. N.H. No.8, Near Ganesh Sisodra, Unn-396445, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFTS7802P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Revenue by: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

SHRI SALAHUDDIN H. BAIG,,BHARUCH vs. THE ACIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on disallowance of exemption claimed amounting to Rs. 59,28,419/- u/s 54F of the Act 2. At the outset

AALIDHARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.94/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. Plot No.168, Udhyog Nagar Road, Udhna, Surat -394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8469M (Assessee) (Respondent)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars, are also being initiated in assessee’s case separately.” 14. It is abundantly clear from the above assessment order passed by the assessing officer under 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) of the Act, that in response to question asked by the assessing officer during the assessment stage, the assessee submitted

MAYUR MATHURDAS PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.697 & 698/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing)

u/s 143(3) of the Act. Sir, I agree to pay taxes along with the legal interest payable on the same. Voluntarily and for mental peace, I agree with withdrawal of deduction. Kindly do not treat this addition as furnishing with inaccurate particulars of income and /or concealment of penalty and obliged. " 11. We note that assessee has submitted

SHRI VIJAYSING P. SOLANKI,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.697 & 698/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing)

u/s 143(3) of the Act. Sir, I agree to pay taxes along with the legal interest payable on the same. Voluntarily and for mental peace, I agree with withdrawal of deduction. Kindly do not treat this addition as furnishing with inaccurate particulars of income and /or concealment of penalty and obliged. " 11. We note that assessee has submitted

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. PATDI COMMERCIAL & INVESTMENT LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, all the three appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1810/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Krish Corporation, Central Circle-3, C-1175 To 1191, Surat. Radha Krishna Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat – 395 003. [Pan: Aahfk 9281C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (#$थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1811/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

exemption from penalty u/s. 271 AAA, the assessee has to fulfill three pre-requisites as mentioned in sub section [2]. In the case

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. KRISH CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the three appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1810/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Krish Corporation, Central Circle-3, C-1175 To 1191, Surat. Radha Krishna Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat – 395 003. [Pan: Aahfk 9281C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (#$थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1811/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

exemption from penalty u/s. 271 AAA, the assessee has to fulfill three pre-requisites as mentioned in sub section [2]. In the case

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. SHRI VINOD J. PATEL,, SURAT

In the result, all the three appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1810/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Krish Corporation, Central Circle-3, C-1175 To 1191, Surat. Radha Krishna Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat – 395 003. [Pan: Aahfk 9281C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (#$थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1811/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

exemption from penalty u/s. 271 AAA, the assessee has to fulfill three pre-requisites as mentioned in sub section [2]. In the case

PAL GRAM HINDU SARVAJANIK TRUST,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.536/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pal Gram Hindu Sarvajanik Trust, V The Income Tax Officer, At 7 Post : Pal, Tal. Choryasi, Exemption Ward, Surat. S. Dist – Surat – 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatp 2544 G (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Vepari - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat [Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 30.05.2018, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of 1The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 24.03.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “[1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. [2] With The Assessing Officer Failing To Specify In The Assessment Order As To Whether The Proceedings Were Initiated For Concealing Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, The Penalty Order Was Required To Be Knocked Down In View Of The Decision Of The Gujarat High Court In Case Of Sorathia Engineering Co. Ltd. (282-Itr-642). [3] The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Vary Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

Exemption Ward, Surat. s. Dist – Surat – 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAATP 2544 G (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hiren Vepari - CA Respondent by : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 02/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by Assessee pertaining

THE ITO, WARD -1,, SURAT vs. SHREE MADHI SURALI VIBHAG NAGRIK SAHAKARI DHIRAN MANDLI LTD., SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.612/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Nagrik, Ward-1, Bardoli. Sahakari Dhiran Mandli Ltd., Madhi, Tal.Bardoli, Dist: Surat. [Pan: Aadas 5644 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Shaunak Zaveri– Ca & Shri Yogesh Gamit - Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr

271 E of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2010-11. 5. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed this appeal before this Tribunal on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. All the grounds raised by the Revenue are inter-related and inter-connected and relates to challenging the order of ld.CIT(A) in deleting penalty levied u/s.271D & 271E of the Income

KHILAN N. PATEL (HUF),SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.429/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Khilan N. Patel (Huf), Vs. The Dcit, 6/2201, Nagarsheri, Mahidharpura, Circle – 2(3), Surat – 395003 (Gujarat) Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakhk6987L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed this appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had issued six notices fixing the hearing on 15.01.2021, 12.06.2023, 17.07.2023, 17.10.2023, 12.01.2024 and 09.02.2024. The assessee sought adjournment on five occasions and did not respond

VIJAYBHAN SINGH RAJPUT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vijaybhan Singh Rajput, I.T.O., Plot No. 131/3, Near Shrisati Tex Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Prints, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Abxpr 3970 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

exemption under Section 54F of the Act. The assessee levied penalty of Rs. 9,30,325/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded vide order dated 31/03/2017. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission and relied on various case laws

SMT. MINAXIBEN HARSHADBHAI MAVANI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Smt. Minaxiben Harshadbhai The Income Tax Officer, Mavani, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat. Vs. 204, Malhar Complex, Icchanath, Surat – 395 007. Pan: Agjpm 8034 B Applicant Respondent

exemption u/s 54F is denied then resulting capital gain be taxed in the year in which period of 3 years to sale is completed. It be so held now. 6. Levy of interest u/s 234A/234B/234C & 234D of the Act is not justified. 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty of Rs. 1,62,407/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. That on facts, in law and on evidence on record, it ought to have been held that there is no neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant craved

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty of Rs. 1,62,407/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. That on facts, in law and on evidence on record, it ought to have been held that there is no neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant craved

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty of Rs. 1,62,407/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. That on facts, in law and on evidence on record, it ought to have been held that there is no neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant craved